America is by far the most advanced country when it comes to medical research. We have the best and brightest. We have investors pouring trillions into research. Companies are making billions on profits every year. These billions in profits are coming from Americans, Americans who are paying hundreds for an epipen when it only cost a few dollars. Meanwhile the rest of the world is paying significantly less. What do you think would happen if all of these profits were diminished because we started offering Americans medicine at a reasonable rate? Do you investors would continue to pour trillions into research?
The energy industry is regulated. Its not like centerpoint can charge whatever they want for using their power lines. We regulate stores from price gauging during hurricanes. If you are going to hospital for an emergency they shouldn't be able to charge you whatever they want.
The single biggest spender by far on medical research in this country is the NIH (aka the US Government). All the big Pharma companies are cutting R&D. They had a bunch of layoff last few years. I know because some of the my friends worked there. The problem is 99% of research leads no where so their model is for others to do the research and when a drug looks promising to buy it up. A lot of the initial funding for this research comes from government grants and other philanthropic organization. It isn't all the profitable to do basic research because the success rate is so low. No one is spending a trillion dollars on research.
I don't know why you can't see that that this is so ethically immoral. Based on your statements, you only seem to care about making money even it it means F the American people. With regards to investors, the medical industry is not the only place where you can make money.
So I'm losing my Scott and White coverage, I assume. Looks like (for now) Blue Cross Blue Shield is the only marketplace policy available to me. What a pain in the ass.
Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. The Democrats could pass whatever plan they chose, and this is what they put together. Prior to Ted Kennedy's death, the senate passed their version of PPACA. If you recall, the special election of Scott Brown was going to make him the 41st vote against Obamacare, which would enable a filibuster blocking the legislation. Instead, Pelosi and house Democrats, instead of marking up the senate bill, passed it as is and then passed a different house bill modifying the just passed PPACA (the Reconciliation Act). By this point Brown had been elected, but the senate said that this new bill wasn't really a new bill, but just a budget item approval, so they could pass it using the Reconciliation Rule, eliminating the opportunity to filibuster. To summarize, the Republicans did not want this bill to pass, none voted for it, they did everything they could to block it but had no power to do so. The Democrats had the ability to pass whatever their caucus put together, and this is the bill that the Democrats could get together on. The Republicans had NO SAY in what was in this bill. To blame them is just blatant dishonesty.
I think this is the fundamental disconnect between the two sides on this debate. Some of us can't fathom treating people's health as a commodity meant to be gouged. Others can't fathom not making continuous profits on illness.
I still don't understand why people who feel this way never express outrage at the hospital system that gouges you.
We'd get better health care at a lower price. Tort reform needs to be part of the equation. Many doctors spend over half their revenue on liability insurance. We are by far the most litigious society on earth, and it is particularly costly to all of us in health care.
Not this year, but it could change next one (my taxes can get painfully complicated). I need to call my insurance guy and see what he can find out. I don't have the patience or honestly the knowledge to deal with it myself.
That simply isn't true. Democrats and republicans (more so the latter presently) don't always vote as a block, especially in the House. They also passed student reform legislation tucked away in their too. Seems like the saw the writing on the wall with how helpful the Republicans would be. They had "no say" because they decided to keep their mouths shut... Even after the public option was dropped they could have come in and implemented any number of their ideas at the table... It's a great racket.... Do everything in your power to make something as difficult as possible... Sit back and point at how it was destined to fail ... And watch the rubes drool and cheer. In the mean time more people are just becoming a bigger (literally too), more expensive burden. Conservatives truly don't care about deficits.
If you aren't getting a subsidy man you do not want to be on healthcare.gov. If you've got a good insurance guy, good. If not, send me an email through the boards I'll take care of you. Healthcare.gov is a nightmare. The plans are worse and you don't have access to some of the better options. Only reason anyone should be on healthcare.gov is for the subsidy.
Where did I ever inject my opinion? Why must you be contrary for the sake of being contrary? If you wonder why people never agree, its because most of us automatically assume what the other person is thinking. "Oh, I think he's Republican, so he's going to disagree with what i think".
As a group, whatever they could negotiate among themselves was what the bill was going to be. Republican obstructionism is not what made the PPACA what it is, this is what the Democrats, collectively, came up with on their own. Voting as a bloc (which they did in this case) has nothing to do with it. Nook's claim was that the Republicans forced this to be the bill passed. That could not be further from the truth. They had no say because the Democrats had a supermajority and could overcome any Republican opposition. The idea they wanted implemented was not to have Obamacare, and that was dismissed, because they didn't need a single Republican vote. Hell, they asked Pelosi to explain what was actually being voted for and she said it needed to be passed to find out what was in it, like it was door #2 on Let's Make a Deal. I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff. Saying you oppose something because it is bad, voting against that bad thing, and then saying, "I told you so" when the bad thing implemented against your wishes turns out to be bad is not a racket. It is being an impotent minority party that sees what is coming but can't convince the other side to stop. The "I told you so" part is just the political reward for being right. Opposing massive government health care subsidies in part because they are too expensive and opposing a mandate which is a de facto tax which flows not to the treasury but to private insurers means that conservatives don't care about deficits why now?
I completely agree. It is terrible health is treated as a commodity and I fully believe something should be done about it. I dont know the solution. What I do know is that blaming both sides and pretending politicians really give a damn is not an option. If a party comes up with a bad idea and crams it through congress, its still a bad idea. If the Obamacare failure brings in new changes and forces politicans to make decisions that are not in their best interest, then great. If nothing changes and we are all stuck with higher prices for the next decade, then this is terrible and everyone loses. With Hillary or Trump as our next president, I have little confidence the right thing will be done. Neither give a damn outside of their own ambitions.
I completely agree with this. The reality is that the USA people are paying for a majority of medical research and advancements. There is a strong free rider effect. Research and quality of care for the top in the USA will certainly suffer.
